Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Saticoy Bay LLC v. Srmof II 2012-1 Trust

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 29, 2015

SATICOY BAY LLC, SERIES 7342 TANGLEWOOD PARK, Plaintiff(s),
v.
SRMOF II 2012-1 TRUST, et al., Defendant(s)

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach. (Doc. # 39). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has passed.

This case involves a dispute over a property that was subject to an HOA "super priority" lien. (Doc. # 36). On November 12, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the transfer or sale of the subject property. (Doc. # 33). On February 28, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion to stay the case pending the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling as to whether foreclosure of an HOA superpriority lien extinguishes an earlier deed of trust. (Doc. # 36).

On November 18, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay. (Doc. # 37). Upon reviewing plaintiff's motion and defendants' response, Judge Ferenbach granted the motion and lifted the stay. (Doc. # 39). Judge Ferenbach also recommended that the court enter an order staying the transfer of the subject property in accordance with the parties' prior stipulation. (Doc. # 39).

This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct "any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review "any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge's findings in full.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach, (doc. # 39), are ADOPTED in their entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall not foreclose upon, and plaintiff shall not sell, transfer, assign, encumber, or otherwise attempt to dispossess any interest in the subject property during the pendency of this litigation or without further order of the court.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.